Advanced life support for out-of-hospital respiratory distress.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory distress is a common symptom of patients transported to hospitals by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. The benefit of advanced life support for such patients has not been established. METHODS: The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Study was a controlled clinical trial that was conducted in 15 cities before and after the implementation of a program to provide advanced life support for patients with out-of-hospital respiratory distress. Paramedics were trained in standard advanced life support, including endotracheal intubation and the administration of intravenous drugs. RESULTS: The clinical characteristics of the 8138 patients in the two phases of the study were similar. During the first phase, no patients were treated by paramedics trained in advanced life support; during the second phase, 56.6% of patients received this treatment. Endotracheal intubation was performed in 1.4% of the patients, and intravenous drugs were administered to 15.0% during the second phase. This phase of the study was also marked by a substantial increase in the use of nebulized salbutamol and sublingual nitroglycerin for the relief of symptoms. The rate of death among all patients decreased significantly, from 14.3% to 12.4% (absolute difference, 1.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4 to 3.4; P=0.01) from the basic-life-support phase to the advanced-life-support phase (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a specific regimen of out-of-hospital advanced-life-support interventions to an existing EMS system that provides basic life support was associated with a decrease in the rate of death of 1.9 percentage points among patients with respiratory distress.

Advanced cardiac life support in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Study tested the incremental effect on the rate of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of adding a program of advanced life support to a program of rapid defibrillation. METHODS: This multicenter, controlled clinical trial was conducted in 17 cities before and after advanced-life-support programs were instituted and enrolled 5638 patients who had had cardiac arrest outside the hospital. Of those patients, 1391 were enrolled during the rapid-defibrillation phase and 4247 during the subsequent advanced-life-support phase. Paramedics were trained in standard advanced life support, which includes endotracheal intubation and the administration of intravenous drugs. RESULTS: From the rapid-defibrillation phase to the advanced-life-support phase, the rate of admission to a hospital increased significantly (10.9 percent vs. 14.6 percent, P<0.001), but the rate of survival to hospital discharge did not (5.0 percent vs. 5.1 percent, P=0.83). The multivariate odds ratio for survival after advanced life support was 1.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.5); after an arrest witnessed by a bystander, 4.4 (95 percent confidence interval, 3.1 to 6.4); after cardiopulmonary resuscitation administered by a bystander, 3.7 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.5 to 5.4); and after rapid defibrillation, 3.4 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 8.4). There was no improvement in the rate of survival with the use of advanced life support in any subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of advanced-life-support interventions did not improve the rate of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a previously optimized emergency-medical-services system of rapid defibrillation. In order to save lives, health care planners should make cardiopulmonary resuscitation by citizens and rapid-defibrillation responses a priority for the resources of emergency-medical-services systems.